Military Watering Down Standards So Females Can Meet Them

[Tigerace117]

I don't think Trump gives a rats' ass. I had hoped he'd let Mattis fix things, but then he stomped all over his own dick on the matter with the transgender bru-ha-ha and the idiocy about how expensive it was.


But yeah. We're going to let our military become less lethal, in order to make people feel better about themselves. Because making people feel better about themselves is why we have a military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

*Ahem.

 

[apdst]

Saw this coming.

 

[apdst]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

*Ahem.

You totally missed the point. Didn't you?

 

[cpwill]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

*Ahem.

Yup. It's a cool story. Know why, once the manpower crisis was passed, Russians got rid of gender integrated front line infantry?









For the same reason that the Israelis did so: they were less combat effective, and suffered higher casualties.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Tigerace117]

Yup. It's a cool story. Know why, once the manpower crisis was passed, Russians got rid of gender integrated front line infantry?









For the same reason that the Israelis did so: they were less combat effective, and suffered higher casualties.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Because it hurt the fragile ego of REMFs that women can fight.

Same reason why the Night Witches got obsolete Po-2 aircraft.

Funny how many casualties one takes going up with this

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...-Polikarpov_Po-2_28_(G-BSSY)_(6740751017).jpg

Against this

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_050602-F-1234P-005.jpg

 

[Tigerace117]

You totally missed the point. Didn't you?

Guess who didn't miss.

More than three hundred times.

 

[cpwill]

Because it hurt the fragile ego of REMFs that women can fight.

Aw, your'e adorable, but I was Marine Corps Infantry well before I took up desk work. I've deployed to combat as both the guy with the computer, and the guy with the rifle whose job it is to kick down a door and murder the guy on the other side. I've seen all male units, gender integrated units, and the difference therein.



Women can indeed fight. So can children, and people missing limbs. That doesn't mean that including them would make for more or even equally effective infantry formations, especially when doing so requires you to lower standards.

As the OP points out, the data on this topic is pretty clear; gender integrated Infantry units are less lethal, less combat effective, and incur higher casualties.


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

Guess who didn't miss.

More than three hundred times.

Irrelevant to the point he was making. I'm going to let you keep thinking you have a clue so the rest of us can laugh at you.

 

[armycowboy]

During the "Surge" in Iraq, we didn't chapter any PT failures or overweight program failures. The military has always manipulated standards based on needs.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Sadly IMO this is what much of the military has regressed to from circa 1976. https://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/...releases-video-of-captured-u-s-sailor-crying/ to present, now compare that to 1968 https://www.atlasobscura.com/articl...t-their-hostages-were-signaling-in-this-photo These guys were communication techs, not exactly the most manly rate and not usually required to carry weapons nor combat trained. Fact was even the sawed off lil bastards north of the 38th couldn't break them. There wasn't a Beau Berghdahl among them.

I don't think one generation is any tougher than another. The individual Rambo doesn't win wars. Well trained soldiers each doing their part is what wins wars.

 

[beerftw]

During the "Surge" in Iraq, we didn't chapter any PT failures or overweight program failures. The military has always manipulated standards based on needs.

I got in before they tightened standards, and in 08 they were still waivering people for criminal records, and even keeping in people who had not passed pt tests in years. by 2010 they were getting strict, by 2014 they were booting people out for being overweight or failing a pt test(they rarely kicked them out for failing but put them on a overweight program, and booted them if they failed to make proper progress)

 

[braindrain]

During the "Surge" in Iraq, we didn't chapter any PT failures or overweight program failures. The military has always manipulated standards based on needs.

And what is the current need that is forcing us to lower standards and have a less effective military

 

[Tigerace117]

Irrelevant to the point he was making. I'm going to let you keep thinking you have a clue so the rest of us can laugh at you.

Gee bud, is that before or after you get your ass whipped by an eleven year old girl? :lamo

 

[armycowboy]

And what is the current need that is forcing us to lower standards and have a less effective military

I retired over 5 years ago, so I really don't know what's going on internally.

 

[Bullseye]

If we were still fighting with swords and maces that required upper body strength, core and leg strength I would agree. Modern warfare is fought at a distance with advanced weapons. Brawn still has its place but is negated by the need to be technically proficient with modern weapon delivery systems. Women have a place to serve if they want it.

That's going to come as a surprise to the troops that have fought door to door in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assuming technology can replace boots on the ground was a big mistake the powers that be made after the first Gulf War. Kicking Saddam's ass in 20 days was the worse thing that could possibly happen to future force planning.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I have always thought that physical fitness standards should be job specific rather than gender specific, with the combat MOSs obviously having the highest physical requirements. No, infantry shouldn’t just expect to be able to hand their ruck sack off to their buddy. Yeah, in an emergency, but not being strong enough to carry your own gear is a self inflicted emergency.

On the other hand, most jobs in the military aren’t combat positions. Doctors and nurses and IT experts and intel analysts and the like don’t need to be as strong and have as good cardio as combat troops. They bring different skill sets to the table.

 

[Oozlefinch]

In glancing through this topic, I see a great many of the clueless keep concentrating on the wrong thing entirely. In reality, it is not strength that is required on the battlefield. Yes it is important, but it is not the most important physical attribute needed.

That physical attribute that is most needed is stamina.

It is not just running, almost everybody in the military can do that. It is running fast enough for a distance that matters. Yea, an Olympic class 100 meter runner can smoke most people at 100 to 200 meters. But how are they at the 440? The 800 meter? How about the 3,000 meter run? Yea, you rarely see the short distance runners competing at those levels. And for the rare ones that do, they are really exceptional athletes.

Sure, many probably remember Carl Lewis winning the 100 meter in LA in 1984. But almost everybody remembers Bruce Jenner winning the Decathlon in 1976. There is a reason the rare athletes that win that even are known as the "World's Greatest Athlete".

So some group are able to win body building or weight lifting events, so what? That means crap on the battlefield, and in fact most of the time it is the smaller guys that do better. And yes, I have seen it. Put some average skinny guy who weighs 165 into 100 pounds of equipment and they have a much easier time hiking 20 miles at a 5 MPH pace. Throw that weight on a buff body builder that weighs 245 before that and they will be struggling.

And like it or not, women do not do as well in things like this. It is not discrimination, it is simple physiology. I am sure if the 100 meter dash was part of the PFT test, the scores needed for men and women would be about the same. But that is not what the military needs, it needs endurance and not speed. That is why the tests are generally 2-3 miles. And the times needed for men and women to pass this are different.

Myself, I believe there should be a secondary MOS requirement that is a simple pass-fail for such jobs. For grunts, throw on 100 pounds of equipment and complete a forced march of 10 miles at a set pace. Not complete it in a certain time, but in a time at a pace that is expected for the mission. For a cannon cocker, simulate the task of loading 155mm shells over and over at the pace of an extended fire mission. For tankers, replacing the tracks on the tank. Simple pass-fail. Because those are the kinds of tasks that are really needed.

 

[cpwill]

If we were still fighting with swords and maces that required upper body strength, core and leg strength I would agree

I bet, when you find out about current pack loads, that you don't.

Modern warfare is fought at a distance with advanced weapons.

If by "distance" you mean "includes inches", yes.



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Oozlefinch]

On the other hand, most jobs in the military aren’t combat positions. Doctors and nurses and IT experts and intel analysts and the like don’t need to be as strong and have as good cardio as combat troops. They bring different skill sets to the table.

Yes, and no. Yes and no.

Just as each MOS is different, so is each branch.

When somebody talks about the Marine Corps, then you really are talking about a branch that is unique. The "Every marine is a Rifleman" is really taken to heart there.

I spent a decade in the Grunts as a Marine. And when our Battalion went "out to the field", everybody went. And we all marched. Infantrymen, cooks, Corpsmen, admin clerks, supply guys, Motor-T, heck even the Battalion Chaplain was right there with his pack, marching alongside the rest of us. Nobody was left behind, everybody marched out with full packs. And once we got to our destination, everybody dug in and set up their fighting positions before they went back to their "regular jobs".

This is something I never saw in the Army. We got in our trucks, drove to our destination, then the Force Protection section set up the defenses and pulled security so that the clerks and mechanics could do their jobs. And it was always funny when we had a simulated attack, and the mechanics never had a clue where their fighting positions were or how to react other than "point at the bad guys and shoot".

Each branch in the military is different, and has very different doctrine and traditions. And when the messy brown stuff hits the oscillating air foils, this is often what makes the difference. It is why to the Marines, events like Chosin and Khe Sahn are still important lessons. They performed as they did because of their belief that "Every Marine is a rifleman". And they expect the same standards (even if not the same training) from every member.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If we were still fighting with swords and maces that required upper body strength, core and leg strength I would agree. Modern warfare is fought at a distance with advanced weapons. Brawn still has its place but is negated by the need to be technically proficient with modern weapon delivery systems. Women have a place to serve if they want it.

No, most combat is still fought at distances of a few hundred yards. And in combat zones individuals still walk dozens or hundreds of miles with their possessions on their back in order to get to where the enemy is. And for all of our "technology", we still put boots on the ground patrolling around our bases.

And as I said, it is less strength than it is endurance. Sure, most anybody can strap on 100 pounds of gear onto their back and bodies. But how many can then operate at a fast walk for an hour at a time. Then take a 10 minute break after covering 5 miles in 50 minutes, then repeat that over and over and over again. Because that is what is expected of Marine Infantry units. 25 miles in 6 hours or less, with full combat loads (around 150 pounds). And still arrive at that destination with enough left in the gas tank to set up their defensive position, and then run an offensive op.

And sometimes you do not even get the "10 minute break". More than once I had been in forced marches where the "Slinkee effect" was so bad that by the time the last Company caught up to the first the 10 minute break was over, so we ended up doing 10 miles without a break. All the strength in the world will not help you in that instance.

 

[apdst]

Gee bud, is that before or after you get your ass whipped by an eleven year old girl? :lamo

WTF are you talking about?

 

[apdst]

I have always thought that physical fitness standards should be job specific rather than gender specific, with the combat MOSs obviously having the highest physical requirements. No, infantry shouldn’t just expect to be able to hand their ruck sack off to their buddy. Yeah, in an emergency, but not being strong enough to carry your own gear is a self inflicted emergency.

On the other hand, most jobs in the military aren’t combat positions. Doctors and nurses and IT experts and intel analysts and the like don’t need to be as strong and have as good cardio as combat troops. They bring different skill sets to the table.

Everyone is an infantryman. That's why everyone should meet the same physical standard.

 

[Myview]

No, most combat is still fought at distances of a few hundred yards. And in combat zones individuals still walk dozens or hundreds of miles with their possessions on their back in order to get to where the enemy is. And for all of our "technology", we still put boots on the ground patrolling around our bases.

And as I said, it is less strength than it is endurance. Sure, most anybody can strap on 100 pounds of gear onto their back and bodies. But how many can then operate at a fast walk for an hour at a time. Then take a 10 minute break after covering 5 miles in 50 minutes, then repeat that over and over and over again. Because that is what is expected of Marine Infantry units. 25 miles in 6 hours or less, with full combat loads (around 150 pounds). And still arrive at that destination with enough left in the gas tank to set up their defensive position, and then run an offensive op.

And sometimes you do not even get the "10 minute break". More than once I had been in forced marches where the "Slinkee effect" was so bad that by the time the last Company caught up to the first the 10 minute break was over, so we ended up doing 10 miles without a break. All the strength in the world will not help you in that instance.

Women have a place to serve if they want it.

 

[Myview]

I bet, when you find out about current pack loads, that you don't.



If by "distance" you mean "includes inches", yes.



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Women have a place to serve if they want it.

 

[Myview]

Women have a place to serve if they want it.